ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2017
Accessibility, accountability, affordability: healthcare policy in orthopedic trauma.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disparities in Access to Musculoskeletal Care: Narrowing the Gap: AOA Critical Issues Symposium.The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2019Article
- Health disparities in orthopedic trauma: a qualitative study examining providers' perspectives on barriers to care and recovery outcomes.Social work in health careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review provides historical background on trauma care in the USA and summarizes contemporary trauma-related health policy issues. It is a primer for orthopedic surgeons who want to promote improvements in research, delivery, and cost reduction in trauma care. RECENT
findingsAs of 2010, funding for trauma research accounted for only 0.02% of all National Institutes of Health research funding. This is disproportionate to the societal burden of traumatic injury, which is the leading cause of death and disability among people aged 1 to 46 years in the USA. The diagnosis-related group model of hospital reimbursement penalizes level-I trauma centers, which typically treat the most severely injured patients. Treatment of traumatic injury at level-I and level-II trauma centers is associated with lower rates of major complications and death compared with treatment at non-trauma centers. Patient proximity to trauma centers has been positively correlated with survival after traumatic injury. Inadequate funding has been cited as a reason for recent closures of trauma centers. Orthopedic surgeons have a responsibility to engage in efforts to improve the quality, accessibility, and affordability of trauma care. This can be done by advocating for greater funding for trauma research; choosing the most cost-effective, patient-appropriate orthopedic implants; supporting the implementation of a national trauma system; leading high-quality research of trauma patient outcomes; and advocating for greater accessibility to level-I trauma centers for underserved populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.